10168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit or 

case No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(5) Exide Technologies ................................... 1690035 8/18/14 2/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(43) Attainment plan for 2008 lead 

NAAQS.

Salina ............... 2/3/15 2/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation].[EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0708]. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–04080 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0402; FRL–9943–07– 

Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode 

Island; Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions from Rhode Island 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 1997 fine particle matter 

(PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 

ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 

2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the 

submissions with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(H); a federal 

implementation plan has been in place 

for this requirement since 1973. EPA is 

also proposing to correct an earlier 

approval of this element for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve several statutes 

submitted by Rhode Island in support of 

their demonstration that the 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

have been met. The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2015–0402 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Arnold.Anne@EPA.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post 

Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. 

This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch 

(Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– 

3912; (617) 918–1664; 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What Rhode Island SIP submissions 

does this rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10169 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area 

Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with 

Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention Of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

N. Rhode Island Statutes Submitted for 

Incorporation Into the SIP 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Stationary and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What Rhode Island SIP submissions 

does this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Rhode Island 

Department of Environmental 

Management (RI DEM or DEM). The 

state submitted its infrastructure SIP for 

each NAAQS on the following dates: 

1997 PM2.51—September 10, 2008; 2006 

PM2.5—November 6, 2009; 2008 Pb— 

October 26, 2011; 2008 ozone—January 

2, 2013; 2010 NO2—January 2, 2013; 

and 2010 SO2—June 27, 2014. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

submissions must contain any revisions 

needed for meeting the applicable SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

the NAAQS already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), 

followed by the October 14, 2011, 

‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions 

referenced in this rulemaking pertain to 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 1997 

PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. To 

the extent that the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

is comprehensive and non-NAAQS 

specific, a narrow evaluation of other 

NAAQS, such as the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, will be included in the 

appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Rhode Island that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). 

Pursuant to these sections, each state 

must submit a SIP that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. States must make 

such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS.’’ This 

requirement is triggered by the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS and is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any other action. Section 

110(a)(2) includes the specific elements 

that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address. 

EPA commonly refers to such SIP 

submissions made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10170 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964, 

67034 (Nov. 12, 2008). 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas separately. A 

detailed history, interpretation, and 

rationale for EPA’s approach to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ See 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–45. 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

non-binding guidance documents to 

make recommendations for states’ 

development and EPA review of 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements. EPA guidance 

applicable to these infrastructure SIP 

submissions is embodied in several 

documents. Specifically, attachment A 

of the 2007 Memo (Required Section 

110 SIP Elements) identifies the 

statutory elements that states need to 

submit in order to satisfy the 

requirements for an infrastructure SIP 

submission. The 2009 Memo provides 

additional guidance for certain elements 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2011 Memo provides guidance 

specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly, 

the 2013 Memo identifies and further 

clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs 

that are not NAAQS specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

EPA is soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. In each 

of Rhode Island’s submissions, a 

detailed list of Rhode Island Laws and, 

previously SIP-approved Air Quality 

Regulations, show precisely how the 

various components of its EPA 

approved SIP meet each of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. The 

following review evaluates the state’s 

submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) 

requirements and relevant EPA 

guidance. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section (also referred to in this 

action as an element) of the Act requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques, schedules for 

compliance, and other related matters. 

However, EPA has long interpreted 

emission limits and control measures 

for attaining the standards as being due 

when nonattainment planning 

requirements are due.2 In the context of 

an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not 

evaluating the existing SIP provisions 

for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only 

evaluating whether the state’s SIP has 

basic structural provisions for the 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

Rhode Island’s infrastructure 

submittals for this element cite Rhode 

Island General Law (RIGL) and several 

RI Air Pollution Control Regulations 

(APCR) as follows: 

Rhode Island General Law § 23–23– 

5(12), ‘‘Powers and duties of the 

director,’’ authorizes the RI DEM 

Director ‘‘[t]o make, issue, and amend 

rules and regulations . . . for the 

prevention, control, abatement, and 

limitation of air pollution. . . .’’ In 

addition, this section authorizes the 

Director to ‘‘prohibit emissions, 

discharges and/or releases and . . . 

require specific control technology.’’ 

The state has submitted RIGL § 23–23– 

5 for inclusion in its SIP. 

The Rhode Island submittals cite 

more than a dozen specific rules that the 

state has adopted to control the 

emissions of Pb, SO2, PM2.5, volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), and NOX. A 

few, with their EPA approval citation 

are listed here: No. 9—Air Pollution 

Control Permits (except for Section 9.13, 

9.14 9.15 and Appendix A which were 

not submitted) (64 FR 67495; December 

2, 1999); No. 11—Petroleum Liquids 

Marketing and Storage (80 FR 32469; 

June 9, 2015); No. 12—Incinerators (47 

FR 17816; April 26, 1982); No. 27— 

Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions (62 

FR 46202; September 2, 1997); No. 37— 

Rhode Island’s Low Emissions Vehicle 

Program (80 FR 50203; August 19, 

2015); and No. 45—Rhode Island Diesel 

Engine Anti-Idling Program (73 FR 

16203; March 27, 2008). 

The RI regulations listed above were 

previously approved into the RI SIP by 

EPA. See 40 CFR 52.2070. In addition, 

EPA proposes to approve RIGL § 23–23– 

5 for inclusion in the SIP. Based upon 

EPA’s review of the submittals, EPA 

further proposes to find that RI DEM’s 

submittal meets the requirements of 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A). Therefore, 

EPA proposes that Rhode Island meets 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

In addition EPA is proposing to 

remove 40 CFR 52.2079, which was 

promulgated on January 24, 1995 (60 FR 

4738). This section states that Rhode 

Island must comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.120, which 

are to implement the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) Low Emission 

Vehicle (LEV) Program (a program 

which requires that only cleaner ‘‘LEV’’ 

cars can be sold in Rhode Island), or 

equivalent measures. Subsequently, 

Rhode Island adopted a Low Emission 

Vehicle Program based on California’s 

LEV program (APCR No. 37), which has 

been approved into the SIP (65 FR 

12476, March 9, 2000). In addition, 

Rhode Island recently adopted 

California’s LEV II program (in revisions 

to APCR No. 37) which is even more 

stringent than LEV I, and that has also 

been approved into the SIP (80 FR 

50203; August 19, 2015). Thus, Rhode 

Island has satisfied 40 CFR 52.2079, and 

therefore, EPA proposes to remove 40 

CFR 52.2079 from the CFR. 

As previously noted, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions or rules related 

to SSM or director’s discretion in the 

context of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. Each year, states submit annual 

air monitoring network plans to EPA for 

review and approval. EPA’s review of 

these annual monitoring plans includes 

our evaluation of whether the state: (i) 

Monitors air quality at appropriate 

locations throughout the state using 

EPA-approved Federal Reference 

Methods or Federal Equivalent Method 

monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) in a timely 

manner; and (iii) provides EPA Regional 

Offices with prior notification of any 

planned changes to monitoring sites or 

the network plan. 

RI DEM operates an air quality 

monitoring network, and EPA approved 

the state’s 2015 Annual Air Monitoring 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10171 

3 In EPA’s April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (See 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address Pb, 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or 

the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a 

suitable PSD permitting program must be 

considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS 

that triggered the requirement to submit an 

infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Network Plan for PM2.5, Pb, ozone, NO2, 

and SO2 on September 8, 2015. 

Furthermore, RI DEM populates AQS 

with air quality monitoring data in a 

timely manner, and provides EPA with 

prior notification when considering a 

change to its monitoring network or 

plan. EPA proposes that RI DEM has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the 

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and 

(iii) a permit program for minor sources 

and minor modifications. A discussion 

of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 3 is 

included within our evaluation of the 

PSD provisions of Rhode Island’s 

submittals. 

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

The Rhode Island General Laws 

provide the Director of RI DEM with the 

legal authority to enforce air pollution 

control requirements. Such enforcement 

authority is provided by RIGL § 23–23– 

5, which grants the Director of RI DEM 

general enforcement power, inspection 

and investigative authority, and the 

power to issue administrative orders, 

among other things. In addition, RI 

APCR No. 9, ‘‘Air Pollution Control 

Permits,’’ sets forth requirements for 

new and modified major and minor 

stationary sources. Section 9.3 of the 

regulation contains specific 

requirements for new and modified 

minor sources. Section 9.4 of the 

regulation contains specific new source 

review requirements applicable to major 

stationary source or major modifications 

located in nonattainment areas. Section 

9.5 contains specific new source review 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications located in attainment or 

unclassifiable areas (PSD). 

EPA proposes that Rhode Island has 

met the enforcement of SIP measures 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major 

Sources and Major Modifications 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) applies to new major sources or 

modifications made to major sources for 

pollutants where the area in which the 

source is located is in attainment of, or 

unclassifiable with regard to, the 

relevant NAAQS. RI DEM’s EPA– 

approved PSD rules, contained at APCR 

No. 9, contain provisions that address 

the majority of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements related 

to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (see 70 FR 71612 

at 71679, 71699–700 (November 29, 

2005)). This requirement was codified 

in 40 CFR 51.166, and requires that 

states submit SIP revisions 

incorporating the requirements of the 

rule, including provisions that would 

treat NOx as a precursor to ozone 

provisions. These SIP revisions were to 

have been submitted to EPA by states by 

June 15, 2007. See 70 FR 71612 at 

71683. 

Rhode Island has incorporated several 

of the changes required by the Phase 2 

Rule, but has not made the necessary 

changes to the definition of ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ identifying NOX as a 

precursor to ozone. Therefore, we are 

proposing that Rhode Island has met all 

but one of the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS obligated by the 

Phase 2 Rule. By letter dated February 

18, 2016, Rhode Island committed to 

submit the required provisions for EPA 

approval by a date no later than one 

year from conditional approval of Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure submissions. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve with respect to 

this requirement of the Phase 2 Rule. 

On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA 

issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for 

the PSD program to be SO2 and NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule 

also specifies that VOCs are not 

considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10172 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s approval of Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure SIP as to Elements C, D(i)(II), or J 

with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action. 

EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment 

area requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR program, 

from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years 

after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, 

these elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, 

which would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following designations 

for some elements. 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The deadline for states 

to submit SIP revisions to their PSD 

programs incorporating these changes 

was May 16, 2011 (See 73 FR 28321 at 

28341).4

On January 18, 2011, Rhode Island 

submitted revisions to its PSD program 

incorporating the necessary changes 

obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule, with 

respect to provisions that explicitly 

identify precursors to PM2.5. EPA 

approved Rhode Island’s 2011 SIP 

revision on April 21, 2015 (80 FR 

22106). 

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 

at 28334. This requirement is codified 

in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to 

states’ PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(See 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

Rhode Island’s SIP-approved PSD 

program does not contain the exact 

language in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a). 

However, EPA has previously 

determined that Rhode Island’s SIPapproved regulations define PM2.5 and 

PM10 such that the state’s PSD program 

adequately accounts for the condensable 

fraction of PM2.5 and PM10. See 78 FR 

63383 at 63386 (October 24, 2013). 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

Rhode Island has met this set of 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS regarding the requirements 

obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule. 

On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864), 

EPA issued the final rule on the 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments,’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c). 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 of October 20, 

2011 in the definition of ‘‘minor source 

baseline date.’’ These revisions are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) 

and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). 

Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ to include 

a level of significance (SIL) of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). Rhode Island has 

not yet made a SIP submittal to EPA that 

addresses EPA’s 2010 NSR rule. 

However, by letter dated February 18, 

2016, Rhode Island committed to 

submitting the necessary updates to its 

NSR regulation within one year of EPA’s 

conditional approval. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve this 

part of sub-element 2 of section 

110(a)(2)(C) relating to requirements for 

state NSR regulations outlined within 

our 2010 NSR regulation. 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), 

EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to 

require each state to make an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a new 

or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program meeting the current 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. The requirements of Element 

D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by 

demonstrating the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. Rhode Island has shown that 

it currently has a PSD program in place 

that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including GHGs, with the exception of 

the deficiencies described elsewhere in 

this notice. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of the EPA’s PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not 

the regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by EPA, the application of 

the Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) requirement to GHG emissions 

from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ sources. With 

respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. 

Circuit’s amended judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emission 

increase from a modification.’’ 

On August 19, 2015, EPA amended its 

PSD and title V regulations to remove 

from the Code of Federal Regulations 

portions of those regulations that the 

D.C. Circuit specifically identified as 

vacated. EPA intends to further revise 

the PSD and title V regulations to fully 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10173 

implement the Supreme Court and D.C. 

Circuit rulings in a separate rulemaking. 

This future rulemaking will include 

revisions to additional definitions in the 

PSD regulations. 

Some states have begun to revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs in 

light of these court decisions, and some 

states may prefer not to initiate this 

process until they have more 

information about the additional 

planned revisions to EPA’s PSD 

regulations. EPA is not expecting states 

to have revised their PSD programs in 

anticipation of EPA’s additional actions 

to revise its PSD program rules in 

response to the court decisions for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Instead, EPA is only 

evaluating such submissions to assure 

that the state’s program addresses GHGs 

consistent with both the court decision, 

and the revisions to PSD regulations 

that EPA has completed at this time. 

At present, EPA has determined that 

Rhode Island’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with 

respect to GHGs. This is because the 

PSD permitting program previously 

approved by EPA into the SIP continues 

to require that PSD permits issued to 

‘‘anyway sources’’ contain limitations 

on GHG emissions based on the 

application of BACT. The approved 

Rhode Island PSD permitting program 

still contains some provisions regarding 

Step 2 sources that are no longer 

necessary in light of the Supreme Court 

decision and D.C. Circuit amended 

judgment. Nevertheless, the presence of 

these provisions in the previouslyapproved plan does not render the 

infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the 

PSD requirements for applying the 

BACT requirement to GHG emissions 

from ‘‘anyway sources’’ that are 

necessary at this time. The application 

of those requirements is not impeded by 

the presence of other previouslyapproved provisions regarding the 

permitting of Step 2 sources. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court 

decision and subsequent D.C. Circuit 

judgment do not prevent EPA’s approval 

of Rhode Island’s infrastructure SIP as 

to the requirements of Elements (C), (as 

well as sub-elements (D)(i)(II), and 

(J)(iii)). 

For the purposes of the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that 

NSR Reform is not in the scope of these 

actions. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

approve the majority of Rhode Island’s 

submittals for this sub-element with 

respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, but to conditionally 

approve these submittals regarding the 

identification of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone in the definition of major 

stationary source and regarding the 

revisions required by the 2010 NSR 

Rule. 

Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

To address the pre-construction 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of minor stationary sources 

and minor modifications of major 

stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or 

include new provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulates emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants. EPA last approved 

Rhode Island’s minor NSR program, on 

May 7, 1981 (46 FR 25446) as well as 

updates to that program. Since this date, 

Rhode Island and EPA have relied on 

the existing minor NSR program to 

ensure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that Rhode 

Island has met the requirement to have 

a SIP-approved minor new source 

review permit program as required 

under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 

PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

This section contains a 

comprehensive set of air quality 

management elements pertaining to the 

transport of air pollution that states 

must comply with. It covers the 

following 5 topics, categorized as subelements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to 

nonattainment, and interference with 

maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 

2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility 

protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate 

pollution abatement; and Sub-element 

5, International pollution abatement. 

Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are 

found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the Act, and these items are further 

categorized into the 4 prongs discussed 

below, 2 of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are 

found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of 

the Act and include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

the 2011 Memo notes that the physical 

properties of Pb prevent it from 

experiencing the same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 or 

ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp 

decrease in Pb concentrations as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. 

Accordingly, although it may be 

possible for a source in a state to emit 

Pb at a location and in such quantities 

that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interference with 

maintenance by, any other state, EPA 

anticipates that this would be a rare 

situation, e.g., sources emitting large 

quantities of Pb in close proximity to 

state boundaries. The 2011 Memo 

suggests that the applicable interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can 

be met through a state’s assessment as 

to whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to its 

borders have emissions that impact a 

neighboring state such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. 

Rhode Island’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

notes that there are no large sources of 

Pb emissions located in close proximity 

to any of the state’s borders with 

neighboring states. Additionally, Rhode 

Island’s submittal and the emissions 

data the state collects from its sources 

indicate that there is no single source of 

Pb, or group of sources, anywhere 

within the state that emits enough Pb to 

cause ambient concentrations to 

approach the Pb NAAQS. Our review of 

the Pb emissions data from Rhode 

Island sources, which Rhode Island has 

entered into the EPA National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) database, 

confirms this, and therefore, EPA agrees 

with Rhode Island and proposes that 

Rhode Island has met this set of 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

Rhode Island’s submittals did not 

address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Rhode 

Island did, however, make subsequent 

submittals for this sub-element on June 

23, 2015 (ozone) and October 15, 2015 

(NO2 and SO2), which EPA will act on 

in a subsequent notice. Therefore, EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10174 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

is not taking any action with respect to 

this requirement for purposes of the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, or 2010 SO2 NAAQS at this 

time. 

Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

One aspect of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state. As has already been 

discussed in the paragraphs addressing 

the PSD sub-element of Element C, 

Rhode Island has satisfied many, though 

not all, of the applicable PSD 

implementation rule requirements. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

One way that this requirement can be 

satisfied is through an NNSR program 

consistent with the CAA that addresses 

any pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. EPA approved Rhode Island’s 

latest NNSR regulations on April 21, 

2015 (80 FR 22106). These regulations 

contain provisions for how the state 

must treat and control sources in 

nonattainment areas, consistent with 40 

CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR 

51. 

As noted above and in Element C, 

Rhode Island’s PSD program does not 

fully satisfy the requirements of EPA’s 

PSD implementation rules, although 

Rhode Island has committed to submit 

the required provisions for EPA 

approval by a date no later than one 

year from conditional approval of Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure submissions. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve this sub-element 

for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the reasons 

discussed under Element C. 

Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011 

Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. A fully approved regional 

haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308 will ensure that emissions 

from sources under an air agency’s 

jurisdiction are not interfering with 

measures required to be included in 

other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. 

Rhode Island’s Regional Haze SIP was 

approved by EPA on May 22, 2012 (77 

FR 30214). Accordingly, EPA proposes 

that Rhode Island has met the visibility 

protection requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 

126 relating to interstate pollution 

abatement. 

Section 126(a) requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. The statute does not specify the 

method by which the source should 

provide the notification. States with 

SIP-approved PSD programs must have 

a provision requiring such notification 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. EPA approved Rhode Island’s 

PSD program, as well as updates to that 

program, with the most recent approval 

occurring on April 21, 2015 (80 FR 

22106), which includes a provision 

requiring notice to neighboring states of 

RI DEM’s intention to either issue a 

draft PSD permit or deny a permit 

application. See APCR No. 9, section 

9.12.3(e). Therefore, we propose to 

approve Rhode Island’s compliance 

with the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 126(a) with respect to the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Rhode Island has no 

obligations under any other provision of 

section 126. 

Sub-Element 5: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution 

Abatement 

One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 

115 relating to international pollution 

abatement. Rhode Island does not have 

any pending obligations under section 

115 for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, or 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

that Rhode Island has met the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

related to section 115 of the CAA 

(international pollution abatement) for 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP and related 

issues. Additionally, Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to 

comply with the requirements with 

respect to state boards under section 

128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) 

requires that, where a state relies upon 

local or regional governments or 

agencies for the implementation of its 

SIP provisions, the state retain 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of SIP obligations with 

respect to relevant NAAQS. This subelement, however, is inapplicable to this 

action, because Rhode Island does not 

rely upon local or regional governments 

or agencies for the implementation of its 

SIP provisions. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

Rhode Island, through its 

infrastructure SIP submittals, has 

documented that its air agency has the 

requisite authority and resources to 

carry out its SIP obligations. Rhode 

Island cites to RIGL § 23–23–5, which 

provides the Director of DEM with the 

legal authority to enforce air pollution 

control requirements. Additionally, this 

statute provides the Director with the 

authority to assess preconstruction 

permit fees and annual operating permit 

fees from air emissions sources and 

establishes a general revenue reserve 

account within the general fund to 

finance the state clean air programs. RI 

DEM further cites to RI APCR No. 28, 

‘‘Operating Permit Fees,’’ which 

requires that major sources pay annual 

operating permit fees. Finally, Section 

III of the 1972 RI SIP specifies RI DEM’s 

legal authority to implement SIP 

measures, and Section VII of the 1972 

SIP describes the resources and 

manpower estimates for RI DEM. EPA 

proposes that Rhode Island has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with 

respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10175 

5Rhode Island also referenced incorporation of 

the Rhode Island Code of Ethics into the SIP in its 

June 27, 2014 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (i) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (ii) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

In Rhode Island, no board or body 

approves permits or enforcement orders; 

these are approved by the Director of RI 

DEM. Thus, with respect to this subelement, Rhode Island is subject only to 

the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of 

section 128 of the CAA (regarding 

conflicts of interest). Accordingly, 

Rhode Island indicated in its January 2, 

2013 infrastructure SIP submittals for 

the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

that it was submitting the Rhode Island 

Code of Ethics, RIGL chapter 36–14, for 

incorporation into the SIP.5 The Rhode 

Island Code of Ethics, applies to state 

employees and public officials (see 

RIGL § 36–14–4), requires disclosure of 

potential conflicts of interest (see RIGL 

§ 36–14–6), and provides that ‘‘No 

person subject to this Code of Ethics 

shall have any interest, financial or 

otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage 

in any business, employment, 

transaction, or professional activity, or 

incur any obligation of any nature, 

which is in substantial conflict with the 

proper discharge of his or her duties or 

employment in the public interest and 

of his or her responsibilities’’ (see RIGL 

§ 36–14–5(a)). EPA is proposing to 

approve RIGL §§ 36–14–1 through –7 

into the Rhode Island SIP. 

EPA proposes that, with the inclusion 

of RIGL §§ 36–14–1 through –7 into the 

Rhode Island SIP as proposed, Rhode 

Island has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for this 

sub-element for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

Rhode Island’s infrastructure 

submittals reference existing state 

regulations previously approved by EPA 

that require sources to monitor 

emissions and submit reports. For 

example, Rhode Island’s submittals 

reference APCR No. 9, ‘‘Air Pollution 

Control Permits,’’ which requires 

emissions testing of permitted processes 

within 180 days of full operation and 

specifies that preconstruction permits 

issued contain an emissions testing 

section. Another example Rhode Island 

cites is APCR No. 14, ‘‘Record Keeping 

and Reporting,’’ which requires 

emission sources to annually report 

emissions and other data to RI DEM, 

and provides that information in certain 

reports obtained pursuant to APCR No. 

14 ‘‘will be correlated with applicable 

emission and other limitations and will 

be available for public inspection.’’ 

Another example referenced in Rhode 

Island’s submittals is APCR No. 27, 

‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,’’ 

listed in Element A, which requires 

annual emissions testing of subject 

sources and includes specifications for 

continuous emissions monitors. 

EPA proposes to find that deficiencies 

with Rhode Island’s recordkeeping 

authority outlined at 40 CFR 52.2074(a) 

have been remedied. In particular, in 

May 1972, EPA found that Rhode Island 

had not met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.230(e) (formerly 40 CFR 51.11(a)(5)), 

which provides that ‘‘Each plan must 

show that the State has legal authority 

to carry out the plan, including 

authority to . . . [o]btain information 

necessary to determine whether air 

pollution sources are in compliance 

with applicable laws, regulations, and 

standards, including authority to require 

recordkeeping and to make inspections 

and conduct tests of air pollution 

sources.’’ In particular, EPA found that 

Rhode Island’s ‘‘[a] uthority to require 

recordkeeping is deficient to the extent 

that [RIGL] section 23–25–13 requires 

only those sources with an air pollution 

control program to keep records.’’ 40 

CFR 52.2074(a). Since this time, Rhode 

Island has revised (and renumbered) its 

statutes such that the applicable 

provision now applies not only to ‘‘any 

person owning or operating any air 

pollution control system,’’ but also to 

‘‘any person owning or operating a 

source of air pollution which has the 

potential to emit any air contaminant, or 

any person owning or operating a source 

of air pollution which the director has 

reason to believe is emitting any 

extremely toxic air contaminant, that 

meets the definition in § 23–23–3 but 

may not have been adopted by the 

director.’’ RIGL § 23–23–13. In addition, 

RIGL § 23–23–5(16) provides RI DEM 

with the authority to ‘‘require any 

person who owns or operates any 

machine, equipment, device, article, or 

facility which has the potential to emit 

any air contaminant . . . to submit 

periodic reports on the nature and 

amounts of air contaminant emission 

from the machine, equipment, device, 

article, or facility.’’ In today’s notice, 

EPA proposes to approve RIGL § 23–23– 

5. Furthermore, APCR No. 14, the latest 

revision of which was approved into the 

SIP on December 2, 1999, see 64 FR 

67495, similarly requires certain 

recordkeeping by the ‘‘owner or 

operator of any facility that emits air 

contaminants.’’ Section 14.2. Finally, 

and as noted above, APCR No. 14 

requires emission sources to report 

emissions and other data to RI DEM at 

least annually. Taken together, these 

post-1972 provisions significantly 

enhance Rhode Island’s recordkeeping 

authority and remedy the deficiency 

identified in 40 CFR 52.2074(a) and, 

consequently, we are proposing to 

remove this provision from the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

EPA also proposes to approve Rhode 

Island’s SIP submittal with respect to 

the deficiencies outlined at 40 CFR 

52.2073 and 52.2074(b) regarding the 

public availability of emission data. In 

May 1972, EPA found that Rhode Island 

had not met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.116(c) (formerly 40 CFR 51.10(e)), 

which provides that a state’s SIP ‘‘must 

provide for public availability of 

emission data reported by source 

owners or operators or otherwise 

obtained by a State or local agency.’’ 

EPA concluded that Rhode Island’s SIP 

was deficient ‘‘since the plan does not 

provide for public availability of 

emission data.’’ 40 CFR 52.2073(a). At 

the same time, EPA found that Rhode 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10176 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6While EPA may have had reservations in 1976 

as to whether the Rhode Island Department of 

Health—which at that time implemented the state’s 

air pollution control program—lacked the statutory 

authority to promulgate APCR No. 14, see 41 FR 

2231, 2231 (Jan. 15, 1976), revisions to state law 

that have occurred since that time convince us that 

RI DEM has sufficient authority. In addition to 

changes to RIGL § 23–23–5(16) discussed in the 

main text above, Rhode Island added a provision to 

RIGL § 23–23–2 that authorizes the RI DEM Director 

‘‘to exercise all powers, direct or incidental, 

necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter 

to assure that the state of Rhode Island complies 

with the federal Clean Air Act.’’ Additionally, RIGL 

§ 23–23–5(24) provides that, ‘‘[i]n addition to the 

powers and duties enumerated in this section, the 

director shall have all appropriate power to adopt 

rules, regulations, procedures, programs, and 

standards as mandated by the authorization of the 

federal Clean Air Act.’’ 

7 In 1972, RIGL § 23–25–5(g) contained the 

following sentence, which has since been removed 

from the state Clean Air Act: ‘‘Any information 

relating to secret processes or methods of 

manufacture or production obtained in the course 

of such inspection shall be kept secret.’’ Compare 

RIGL § 23–23–5(7). 

Island had not met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.230(f) (formerly 40 CFR 

51.11(a)(6)), which provides, among 

other things, that ‘‘Each plan must show 

that the State has legal authority to carry 

out the plan, including authority to . . . 

[r]equire owners or operators of 

stationary sources to make periodic 

reports to the State on the nature and 

amounts of emissions from such 

stationary sources’’ and authority ‘‘to 

make such data available to the public 

as reported and as correlated with any 

applicable emission standards or 

limitations.’’ With respect to that 

requirement, EPA found that (1) Rhode 

Island’s ‘‘[a]uthority to release emission 

data to the public is deficient in that 

section 23–25–6 requires that only 

records concerning investigations be 

available to the public’’ and that (2) 

‘‘section 23–25–5(g) and section 23–25– 

13 may limit the State’s authority to 

release emission data.’’ 40 CFR 

52.2074(b). As a result, EPA 

promulgated regulations at 40 CFR 

52.2073(b) regarding public availability 

of emission data. 

While the present-day version of RIGL 

§ 23–25–6 (now codified at RIGL § 23– 

23–6) still appears to apply only to 

records concerning investigations, the 

SIP-approved state regulation APCR No. 

14 is not by its terms so limited. This 

regulation establishes certain 

recordkeeping requirements and 

provides that ‘‘[i]nformation obtained 

from owners or operators of facilities 

pursuant to Section 14.2.1 . . . will be 

available for public inspection.’’ Section 

14.2.1 is not limited to records 

concerning investigations and 

specifically encompasses, among other 

things, ‘‘data on . . . emissions of air 

contaminants . . . or other data that 

may be necessary to determine if the 

facility is in compliance with air 

pollution control regulations.’’ 6 The 

current version of RIGL § 23–25–13 

(now codified at § 23–23–13) requires 

sources to ‘‘keep accurate records of 

operation’’ and provides that such 

records ‘‘may be submitted to the 

department as trade secret or 

proprietary information to the extent 

that protection is available under the 

[Rhode Island] public records act.’’ By 

letter dated February 18, 2016, RI DEM 

informed EPA that, in practice, it makes 

emission data available to the public 

pursuant to APCR No. 14 and that it 

interprets RIGL § 23–23–13 and the state 

public records act at RIGL title 38 as not 

providing ‘‘trade secret or proprietary 

information’’ protection to emission 

data reported to the state. Furthermore, 

former RIGL § 23–25–5(g) has been 

amended since the disapproval, no 

longer containing the apparent 

limitation on the State’s authority to 

release emission data.7 Consequently, 

EPA proposes to approve Rhode Island’s 

SIP as providing for public availability 

of emission data and that Rhode Island’s 

authority to release emission data to the 

public is no longer deficient as 

described in 40 CFR 52.2073(a) and 

52.2074(b). Thus, EPA proposes to 

approve Rhode Island’s SIP as providing 

for correlation by RI DEM of emissions 

reports by sources with applicable 

emission limitations or standards, and 

as providing for the public availability 

of those emission reports. Therefore, we 

are proposing to remove from the Code 

of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 52.2073 

in its entirety and the provisions in 40 

CFR 52.2074(b) regarding public 

availability of emissions data. 

EPA also proposes to find that 

additional deficiencies outlined at 40 

CFR 52.2074(b) and 52.2075(a) 

regarding source surveillance have also 

been remedied. Section 52.2074(b) 

provides in relevant part that Rhode 

Island’s SIP lacks adequate ‘‘[a]uthority 

to require sources to install and 

maintain monitoring equipment’’ and 

‘‘[a]uthority to require sources to 

periodically report. . . .’’ Section 

52.2075(a) provides that ‘‘[t]he 

requirements of § 51.211 of this chapter 

are not met since the plan lacks 

adequate legal authority to require 

owners or operators of stationary 

sources to maintain records of, and 

periodically report information as may 

be necessary to enable the state to 

determine whether such sources are in 

compliance with applicable portions of 

the control strategy.’’ As a result, section 

52.2075(b) sets forth EPA regulations 

regarding source surveillance. As has 

already been discussed above, RIGL 

§ 23–23–5(16) now provides the RI DEM 

Director with the authority to ‘‘require 

any person who owns or operates [a 

source that has] the potential to emit 

any air contaminant, or which is 

emitting any extremely toxic air 

contaminant, to install, maintain, and 

use air pollution emission monitoring 

devices and to submit periodic reports 

on that nature and amounts of air 

contaminant emission from the 

machine, equipment, device, article, or 

facility.’’ As has also been discussed 

previously, APCR No. 14 implements 

this authority by requiring facility 

owners or operators to keep certain 

records (including ‘‘data that may be 

necessary to determine if the facility is 

in compliance with air pollution control 

regulations’’) and report those records to 

RI DEM at least annually. Moreover, 

APCR No. 9, ‘‘Air Pollution Control 

Permits,’’ requires emissions testing of 

permitted processes within 180 days of 

full operation and specifies that any 

preconstruction permits issued contain 

an emissions testing section. In 

addition, APCR No. 27, ‘‘Control of 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,’’ requires 

annual emissions testing of subject 

sources and includes specifications for 

continuous emissions monitors. 

Consequently, EPA proposes to approve 

the Rhode Island SIP as providing 

adequate authority regarding source 

surveillance, and therefore proposes to 

remove 40 CFR 52.2074(b) and 

52.2075(a) and (b) from the Code of 

Federal Regulations. For the foregoing 

reasons, EPA proposes that Rhode 

Island has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. Section 

303 of the CAA provides authority to 

the EPA Administrator to seek a court 

order to restrain any source from 

causing or contributing to emissions 

that present an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment.’’ 

Section 303 further authorizes the 

Administrator to issue ‘‘such orders as 

may be necessary to protect public 

health or welfare or the environment’’ in 

the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to 

assure prompt protection . . . by 

commencement of such civil action.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10177 

8Rhode Island’s current version of APCR No. 7, 

though not incorporated into the SIP, has been 

expanded and contains a nearly identical provision, 

except that the ‘‘and’’ between ‘‘concentration’’ and 

‘‘duration’’ has been replaced with an ‘‘or.’’ See 

APCR No. 7.2. 

9This section further provides that the remedy 

provided therein ‘‘shall be in addition to remedies 

relating to the removal or abatement of nuisances 

or any other remedies provided by law.’’ With 

regard to the abatement of nuisances, Rhode Island 

law provides that, ‘‘[w]henever a nuisance is 

alleged to exist, the attorney general or any citizen 

of the state may bring an action in the name of the 

state . . . to abate the nuisance and to perpetually 

enjoin the person or persons maintaining the 

nuisance and any or all persons owning any legal 

or equitable interest in the place from further 

maintaining or permitting the nuisance either 

directly or indirectly.’’ RIGL § 10–1–1. 

10Those regulations do not specifically address 

PM2.5 and lead. See also 40 CFR 51.150. 

We propose to find that Rhode 

Island’s submittals and certain state 

statutes and regulations provide for 

authority comparable to that in section 

303. Rhode Island’s submittals cite 

Section V of the 1972 RI SIP, which 

specifies RI DEM’s Emergency Episode 

Authority and Procedures and RIGL 

chapter 23–23.1 and § 23–23–16, which 

set forth certain emergency powers of 

the RI DEM Director. In particular, RIGL 

§ 23–23–16 allows the Director to order 

a source to cease operations if it is 

determined that the source is violating 

any provision of RIGL Chapter 23–23, or 

any regulation or order issued 

thereunder, and that the violation poses 

‘‘an immediate danger to public health 

or safety.’’ Section 23–23.1–5 of the 

RIGL provides that, if the RI DEM 

Director finds that air pollution 

anywhere in the state ‘‘constitutes an 

unreasonable and emergency risk to the 

health of those present within that 

area,’’ the Director shall communicate 

that finding to the governor, who ‘‘may 

by proclamation declare . . . that an air 

pollution episode exists’’ and may issue 

orders to, among other things, ‘‘prohibit, 

restrict, or condition the operation of 

retail, commercial, manufacturing, 

industrial, or similar activity . . . [the] 

operation of incinerators . . . the 

burning or other consumption of any 

type of fuel [and/or] any and all other 

activity in the area which contributes or 

may contribute to the air pollution 

emergency.’’ State law further provides 

that such gubernatorial orders ‘‘shall not 

require any judicial or other order or 

confirmation of any type in order to 

become immediately effective as the 

legal obligation of all persons, firms, 

corporations, and other entities within 

the state.’’ See RIGL § 23–23.1–7. In 

addition, such orders ‘‘shall be enforced 

by [RI DEM], the state council of 

defense, state and local police, and air 

pollution enforcement personnel forces. 

Those enforcing any governor’s order 

shall require no further authority or 

warrant in executing it than the 

issuance of the order itself.’’ See RIGL 

§ 23–23.1–8(a). Rhode Island has 

submitted RIGL §§ 23–23–16 and 23– 

23.1–5 for inclusion in the SIP. 

In a letter dated February 18, 2016, 

Rhode Island also specified that RIGL 

§ 42–17.1–2 and APCR No. 7, taken 

together with the authorities in the 

submittals, satisfy the requirement that 

the SIP provide for authority 

comparable to section 303. More 

specifically, APCR No. 7, which was 

previously approved into Rhode Island’s 

SIP in 1981 (see 46 FR 25446), provides 

that ‘‘[n]o person shall emit any 

contaminant which either alone or in 

connection with other emissions, by 

reason of their concentration and 

duration, may be injurious to human, 

plant or animal life, or cause damage to 

property or which unreasonably 

interferes with the enjoyment of life and 

property.’’ 8 Rhode Island notes that the 

emission standard set in APCR No. 7 is 

extremely broad, and intentionally so. 

Section 42–17.1–2(21) of the RIGL 

provides that, ‘‘[w]henever the director 

determines that there exists a violation 

of any law, rule, or regulation within his 

or her jurisdiction which requires 

immediate action to protect the 

environment, he or she may . . . issue 

an immediate compliance order stating 

the existence of the violation and the 

action he or she deems necessary.’’ Such 

orders may, at the Director’s discretion, 

be effective immediately upon service. 

Id. With regard to the authority to bring 

suit, section 42–17.1–2(21) further 

empowers the Director to ‘‘institute 

injunction proceedings in the superior 

court of the state for enforcement of the 

compliance order and for appropriate 

temporary relief. . . .’’ 9

Finally, the Rhode Island 

Environmental Rights Act (‘‘RIERA’’) 

provides that ‘‘each person is entitled by 

right to the protection, preservation, and 

enhancement of air, water, land, and 

other natural resources located within 

the state [and that] it is in the public 

interest to provide an adequate civil 

remedy to protect air, water, land and 

other natural resources located within 

the state from pollution, impairment, or 

destruction.’’ Id. § 10–20–1. 

Consequently, under RIERA, ‘‘[a]ny city 

or town’’ may bring suit against ‘‘any 

person to enforce, or to restrain the 

violation of, any environmental quality 

standard which is designed to prevent 

or minimize pollution, impairment, or 

destruction of the environment,’’ id. 

§ 10–20–3(a), or bring an action ‘‘for 

declaratory and equitable relief against 

any other person for the protection of 

the environment, or the interest of the 

public therein, from pollution, 

impairment, or destruction,’’ id. § 10– 

20–3(b). An ‘‘environmental quality 

standard’’ is defined quite broadly as 

‘‘any statute, ordinance, limitation, 

regulation, rule, order, license, 

stipulation, agreement, or permit of the 

state or any instrumentality, agency, or 

political subdivision thereof.’’ Id. § 10– 

20–2(2). RIERA also establishes an 

‘‘environmental advocate’’ within the 

office of the Attorney General who is 

authorized to ‘‘[m]aintain and/or 

intervene in civil actions authorized by’’ 

RIERA and to ‘‘take all possible actions, 

including but not limited to . . . formal 

legal action, to secure and insure 

compliance with the provisions of 

[RIERA] and any promulgated 

environmental quality standards.’’ Id. 

§ 10–20–3(d). 

While no single Rhode Island statute 

or regulation mirrors the authorities of 

CAA section 303, we propose to find 

that the combination of state statutes 

and regulations discussed herein 

provide for comparable authority to 

immediately bring suit to restrain, and 

issue orders against, any person causing 

or contributing to air pollution that 

presents an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, 

for any NAAQS, Rhode Island have an 

approved contingency plan for any Air 

Quality Control Region (AQCR) within 

the state that is classified as Priority I, 

IA, or II. See 40 CFR 51.152(c). A 

contingency plan is not required if the 

entire state is classified as Priority III for 

a particular pollutant. Id. There is only 

one AQCR in Rhode Island—the 

Metropolitan Providence Interstate 

AQCR—and Rhode Island’s portion 

thereof is classified as a Priority I area 

for PM, SOX, carbon monoxide, and 

ozone and as a Priority III area for NO2. 

See 40 CFR 52.2071. Consequently, as 

relevant to this proposed rulemaking 

action, Rhode Island’s SIP must contain 

an emergency contingency plan meeting 

the specific requirements of 40 CFR 

51.151 and 51.152 with respect to SO2

and ozone.10

Rhode Island’s submittals cite to 

APCR No. 10, ‘‘Air Pollution Episodes,’’ 

which specifies episode criteria for, and 

measures to be implemented during, air 

pollution alerts, warnings and 

emergencies to prevent ambient 

pollution concentrations from reaching 

significant harm levels and is very 

closely modeled on EPA’s example 

regulations for contingency plans at 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix L. As stated in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10178 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11 ‘‘. . . and the economic and social necessity of 

the source of air pollution.’’ Former RIGL § 23–25– 

5(h). 12 ‘‘No order or modification of the order may be 

entered by the director deferring compliance with 

a requirement of this chapter or the rules and 

regulations promulgated under this chapter, unless 

the deferral is consistent with provisions and 

procedures of the federal Clean Air Act.’’ RIGL 

§ 23–23–8(a). 

Rhode Island’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals under the discussion of 

public notification (Element J), Rhode 

Island also posts near real-time air 

quality data, air quality predictions and 

a record of historical data on the RI 

DEM Web site. DEM’s predictions are 

also displayed daily in the Providence 

Journal. Alerts are sent by email to a 

large number of affected parties, 

including emissions sources, concerned 

individuals, schools, health and 

environmental agencies and the media. 

Alerts include information about the 

health implications of elevated 

pollutant levels and list actions that 

reduce emissions. 

In addition, daily forecasted ozone 

and fine particle levels are also made 

available on the internet through the 

EPA AirNow and EnviroFlash systems. 

Information regarding these two systems 

is available on EPA’s Web site at 

www.airnow.gov. Notices are sent out to 

EnviroFlash participants when levels 

are forecast to exceed the current 8-hour 

ozone or 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

Finally, we note that lead and PM2.5

are not explicitly included in the 

contingency plan requirements of 40 

CFR subpart H. In addition, Rhode 

Island notes in its submittals that, with 

respect to lead, there are no sources in 

the state that exceed EPA’s reporting 

threshold of 0.5 tons per year and that 

the largest source has lead emissions of 

0.076 tons per year. With respect to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA 2009 

Guidance recommends that states 

develop emergency episode plans for 

any area that has monitored and 

recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater 

than 140 mg/m3 since 2006. In its 

November 6, 2009 submittal, Rhode 

Island certified that the highest 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentration recorded in the 

state since 2006 was 44.7 mg/m3. 

Furthermore, EPA’s review of Rhode 

Island’s certified air quality data in AQS 

indicates that the highest 24-hour PM2.5

concentration since that time (i.e., data 

through 2014) is 56.2 mg/m3, which 

occurred in 2010. Although not 

expected, if lead or PM2.5 conditions 

were to change, Rhode Island does have 

general authority, as noted previously 

(e.g., RIGL §§ 23–23–16, 23–23.1–5, 42– 

17.1–2(21) and APCR No. 7), to order a 

source to cease operations if it is 

determined that emissions from the 

source pose an immediate danger, or 

unreasonable and emergency risk, to 

public health or safety or to the 

environment. 

These Rhode Island statutes, rules and 

regulations are consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H, section 51.150 through 51.153. 

EPA proposes that Rhode Island has 

met the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for section 110(a)(2)(G) 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Finally, EPA proposes to remove an 

outdated section from the Code of 

Federal Regulations related to 

abatement orders. In 1973, certain 

provisions enacted at RIGL §§ 23–25– 

5(h) and 23–25–8(a) (now renumbered 

as RIGL §§ 23–23–5(8) and 23–23–8(a), 

respectively) concerning state-issued 

abatement orders were found to be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and, 

accordingly, disapproved. See 40 CFR 

52.2078(a). EPA then promulgated 

regulations placing limitations on the 

extent to which state orders could defer 

compliance with the SIP. See 40 CFR 

52.2078(b). Because Rhode Island has 

since remedied the inconsistency by 

striking the inappropriate language 11

from RIGL § 23–23–5(8) and adding 

limiting language 12 to RIGL § 23–23– 

8(a), EPA proposes to remove 40 CFR 

52.2078 as no longer necessary. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires that a state’s SIP 

provide for revision in response to: 

Changes in the NAAQS; availability of 

improved methods for attaining the 

NAAQS; or an EPA finding that the SIP 

is substantially inadequate. In 1973, it 

was determined that Rhode Island’s 

original SIP did not fully satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(H) and EPA promulgated 

federal regulations to address the gap in 

the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2080. Since 

Rhode Island’s September 10, 2008, 

November 6, 2009, October 26, 2011, 

January 2, 2013, and June 27, 2014 

submittals likewise do not address the 

gap in the SIP that led to a disapproval 

in 1973, EPA proposes to find that 

Rhode Island has not met applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for 

element H with respect to the 1997 

PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

disapprove this portion of the state’s 

submittals. Further, EPA notes that our 

2011 approval of the element H portion 

of Rhode Island’s infrastructure 

submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, see 76 FR 40248, was in error, 

because the state’s submittal in that case 

likewise did not address the gap. EPA 

proposes to correct this oversight 

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) and to 

disapprove the 1997 8-hour ozone 

infrastructure submittal for element H. 

No further action by EPA or the state is 

required, however, because remedying 

federal regulations are already in place. 

Moreover, mandatory sanctions under 

CAA section 179 are inapplicable, 

because the submittal is not required 

under CAA title I part D nor in response 

to a SIP call under CAA section 

110(k)(5). 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under 

Part D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Rhode Island with respect to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

are described below. 

Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

Rhode Island General Law § 23–23–5, 

authorizes the RI DEM Director ‘‘[t]o 

advise, consult, and cooperate with the 

cities and towns and other agencies of 

the state, federal government, and other 

states and interstate agencies, and with 

effective groups in industries in 

furthering the purposes of this chapter.’’ 

Rhode Island has submitted this statute 

for inclusion into the SIP. In addition, 

APCR No. 9, which has been approved 

into Rhode Island’s SIP (see 78 FR 

63383, October 24, 2013), directs RI 

DEM to notify relevant municipal 

officials and FLMs, among others, of 

tentative determinations by RI DEM 

with respect to permit applications for 

major stationary sources and major 

modifications. 

EPA proposes to approve RIGL § 23– 

23–5 into the SIP and proposes that 

Rhode Island has met the infrastructure 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10179 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. Rhode 

Island’s APCR No. 10, ‘‘Air Pollution 

Episodes,’’ specifies criteria for, and 

measures to be implemented during, air 

pollution alerts, warnings and episodes. 

In addition, the RI DEM Web site 

includes near real-time air quality data, 

air quality predictions and a record of 

historical data. DEM’s predictions are 

also displayed daily in the Providence 

Journal, a newspaper with statewide 

circulation. Alerts are sent by email to 

a large number of affected parties, 

including emissions sources, concerned 

individuals, schools, health and 

environmental agencies and the media. 

Alerts include information about the 

health implications of elevated 

pollutant levels and list actions that 

reduce emissions. In addition, Air 

Quality Data Summaries of the year’s air 

quality monitoring results are issued 

annually. The summaries are sent to a 

mailing list of interested parties and 

posted on the RI DEM Web site. Rhode 

Island is also an active partner in EPA’s 

AirNow and EnviroFlash air quality 

alert programs. EPA proposes that 

Rhode Island has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

related to PSD. Rhode Island’s PSD 

program in the context of infrastructure 

SIPs has already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and, 

as we have noted, does not fully satisfy 

the requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules, although Rhode 

Island has committed to submit the 

required provisions for EPA approval by 

a date no later than one year from 

conditional approval of Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure submissions. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve the PSD subelement of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the, 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, consistent with the actions we 

are proposing for sections 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, as 

noted in EPA’s 2013 Memo, we find that 

there is no new visibility obligation 

‘‘triggered’’ under section 110(a)(2)(J) 

when a new NAAQS becomes effective. 

In other words, the visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

not germane to infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Accordingly, Rhode Island did 

not make a submittal for this subelement, for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, or 2010 

SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submittals. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

To satisfy Element K, the state air 

agency must demonstrate that it has the 

authority to perform air quality 

modeling to predict effects on air 

quality of emissions of any NAAQS 

pollutant and submission of such data 

to EPA upon request. Rhode Island 

reviews the potential impact of major 

sources consistent with 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W, ‘‘Guidelines on Air Quality 

Models.’’ Rhode Island APCR No. 9, 

‘‘Air Pollution Control Permits,’’ 

requires permit applicants to submit air 

quality modeling to demonstrate 

impacts of new and modified major 

sources. The modeling data are sent to 

EPA along with the draft major permit. 

The state also collaborates with the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), 

and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 

Management Association and EPA in 

order to perform large scale urban air 

shed modeling for ozone and PM if 

necessary. EPA proposes that Rhode 

Island has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

that each major stationary source pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. Section 23–23– 

5 of the RIGL provides for the 

assessment of operating permit fees and 

preconstruction permit fees for air 

emissions sources. In addition, RI 

DEM’s ‘‘Rules and Regulations 

Governing the Establishment of Various 

Fees’’ sets forth permit fee requirements 

for air emissions sources and the legal 

authority to collect those fees. These 

rules and regulations are promulgated 

pursuant to RIGL Chapter 23–23 Air 

Pollution, and Chapter 42–35, 

Administrative Procedures. Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

also refer to its regulations 

implementing its operating permit 

program pursuant to 40 CFR part 70. 

Rhode Island’s Title V permitting 

program, APCR No. 28, ‘‘Operating 

Permit Fees,’’ requires major sources to 

pay annual operating permit fees. EPA’s 

full approval of Rhode Island’s title V 

program (APCR No. 28) became effective 

on November 30, 2001. See 66 FR 49839 

(Oct. 1, 2001). To gain this approval, 

Rhode Island demonstrated the ability 

to collect sufficient fees to run the 

program. The fees collected from title V 

sources are above the presumptive 

minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 

70.9(b)(2)(i). EPA proposes that Rhode 

Island has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

Pursuant to Element M, states must 

consult with, and allow participation 

from, local political subdivisions 

affected by the SIP. Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure submittals reference RIGL 

§ 23–23–5, which provides for 

consultation with affected local political 

subdivisions and authorizes the RI DEM 

Director ‘‘to advise, consult, and 

cooperate with the cities and towns and 

other agencies of the state . . . and 

other states and interstate agencies . . . 

in furthering he purposes of’’ the state 

Clean Air Act (i.e., RIGL chapter 23–23). 

EPA proposes that Rhode Island has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

N. Rhode Island Statutes for Inclusion 

Into the Rhode Island SIP 

As noted above in the discussion of 

several elements, Rhode Island 

submitted, and EPA is proposing to 

approve, Sections 23–23–5, 23–23–16, 

23–23.1–5, and 36–14–1 through -7 of 

the Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) 

into the SIP. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10180 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

infrastructure SIPs submitted by Rhode 

Island for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of 

certain aspects relating to the state’s 

PSD program, which we are proposing 

to conditionally approve, and section 

110(a)(2)(H), which we are proposing to 

disapprove. EPA is also proposing to 

correct an earlier approval pursuant to 

section 110(k)(6) with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. No further action by EPA or 

the state is required, however, since 

federal regulations are already in place 

that address the gap in the state’s 

submittals with respect to element H. 

The state submitted these SIPs on the 

following dates: 1997 PM2.5—September 

10, 2008; 2006 PM2.5—November 6. 

2009; 2008 Pb—October 13, 2011; 2008 

ozone—January 2, 2013; 2010 NO2— 

January 2, 2013; and 2010 SO2—May 30, 

2013. Specifically, EPA’s proposed 

actions regarding each infrastructure SIP 

requirement, are contained in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED ACTION ON RHODE ISLAND’S INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS

Element 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ................. A A A A A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .......... A A A A A 

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ................................... A A A A A 

(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major modifications .................................................................................. A* A* A* A* A* 

(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor modifications .................................................................................. A A A A A 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS .............................................................. A NI NI NI NS 

(D)2: PSD ............................................................................. A* A* A* A* A* 

(D)3: Visibility Protection ...................................................... A A A A A 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ................................... A A A A A 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement ............................... A A A A A 

(E): Adequate resources ...................................................... A A A A A 

(E): State boards .................................................................. A A A A A 

(E): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies NA NA NA NA NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ............................ A A A A A 

(G): Emergency power ......................................................... A A A A A 

(H): Future SIP revisions ..................................................... D D D D D 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D + + + + + 

(J)1: Consultation with government officials ........................ A A A A A 

(J)2: Public notification ......................................................... A A A A A 

(J)3: PSD ............................................................................. A* A* A* A* A* 

(J)4: Visibility protection ....................................................... + + + + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ....................................... A A A A A 

(L): Permitting fees .............................................................. A A A A A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities .................................................................................... A A A A A 

In the above table, the key is as follows: 

A Approve. 

A* Approve but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to the identification of NOX as a precursor of ozone and the revisions 

required by the 2010 NSR rule. 

D Disapprove, but no further action required because federal regulations already in place. 

+ Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

NI Not included in the January 2, 2013 (ozone and NO2) and May 20, 2013 (SO2) submittals which are the subject of today’s action. Rhode 

Island later submitted SIPs to address this element on June 23, 2015 (ozone) and October 15, 2015 (NO2 and SO2). EPA will act at a later time 

on those submittals. 

NS No Submittal. 

NA Not applicable. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve, and incorporate into the Rhode 

Island SIP, the following Rhode Island 

statutes which were included for 

approval in Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals: Sections 

23–23–5, 23–23–16, 23–23.1–5, and 36– 

14–1 through –7. Finally, for the reasons 

stated above EPA is proposing to 

remove 40 CFR 52.2073(a) and (b); 

52.2074(a) and (b); 52.2075(a) and (b); 

52.2078(a) and (b); and 52.2079 from the 

CFR. 

As noted in Table 1, we are proposing 

to conditionally approve portions of 

Rhode Island’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals pertaining to the state’s PSD 

program for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. Under section 

110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may 

conditionally approve a plan based on 

a commitment from the State to adopt 

specific enforceable measures by a date 

certain, but not later than 1 year from 

the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves the commitment 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to submit an 

update to its PSD program that fully 

remedies the deficiencies mentioned 

above under element C. If the State fails 

to do so, this action will become a 

disapproval one year from the date of 

final approval. EPA will notify the State 

by letter that this action has occurred. 

At that time, this commitment will no 

longer be a part of the approved Rhode 

Island SIP. EPA subsequently will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register notifying the public that the 

conditional approval automatically 

converted to a disapproval. If the State 

meets its commitment, within the 

applicable time frame, the conditionally 

approved submission will remain a part 

of the SIP until EPA takes final action 

approving or disapproving the new 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10181 

submittal. If EPA disapproves the new 

submittal, the conditionally approved 

infrastructure SIP elements for all 

affected pollutants will be disapproved. 

In addition, a final disapproval triggers 

the Federal Implementation Plan 

requirement under section 110(c). If 

EPA approves the new submittal, the 

PSD program and relevant infrastructure 

SIP elements will be fully approved and 

replace the conditionally approved 

program in the SIP. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

several Rhode Island statutes referenced 

in Section V above. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 19, 2016. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04405 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0006; FRL–9942–89– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia which 

revises Virginia’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) air 

quality preconstruction permitting 

program to be consistent with the 

federal PSD regulations regarding the 

use of the significant monitoring 

concentration (SMC) and significant 

impact levels (SILs) for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) emissions. In the Final 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s SIP 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by March 30, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0006 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

johansen.amy@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS